Minutes of August 16, 2001 Meeting

2001 Expenditures and Annual Report. Bob Sewell asked that campus
coordinators send copies of their collection development reports to him.
He distributed various tables that will be in the annual report of the
Libraries. There was discussion about dissertations and options for
microform and digitization.

2002 Budget Outlook. Bob submitted a budget request following the scheme
developed for the long-range plan and is optimistic about the prospects
for another increased allocation from the university. He noted that an
early allocation has been made. Mary Page confirmed that firm orders
dated before January 1, 2000 have been cancelled and lists distributed
for selector review. There was discussion about encumbrance review, a
good portion of which is being done as part of the serial vendor change.

The Camden vendor change is done, and New Brunswick and Newark are in
progress. Howard Dess, Veronica Calderhead, and Jim Nettleman will
discuss separately the cancellations required by the ACS online
subscription. Bob said in response to a question that an invoice cannot
be changed from one non-state fund to a different non-state or state
account after it has been paid. There is more flexibility with state
funds. Bob reviewed the budget request, and there was a discussion of
allocation options.

Fall Start-up (New Databases, etc.). Jeanne Boyle sent an update message
to the faculty and staff e-lists. Proquest has been extended through the
end of October.

Evaluation of E-journals. Ann Montanaro, Samson Soong, and Addie Tallau
are members of an assessment committee subcommittee that is proposing a
user survey about e-journal use. Bob reviewed the proposed questions.
There were many questions, and discussion was postponed to a future
meeting. Bob was requested to ask Samson to have the subcommittee
consider how the results will help us. Ann noted that there is also
going to be an online survey of electronic reserves.

Serials Vendor Switch. Bob signed the letter to Faxon the day before the
meeting. He reported on a telephone call from Divine. Mary Page reported
on the transition. There was discussion about how to handle claims from
the Faxon period. The budget office will issue instructions to the units
about handling Faxon supplemental bills and credits.

2. Acquisitions Update (including cancellation)

Mary Page reported on improvements in the order backlog, return of
orders to selectors for insufficient funds, and serial cancellations. We
need to notify vendors of titles cancelled by September 15m though there
is some flexibility in the date. All new vendors will get title lists by
Friday, the day after the meeting. Bob directed that each campus is to
close paper subscriptions of ACS journals and that Wiley funds will be
transferred to central. Mary will share the Wiley list with campus
coordinators. [Because of developments after the meeting -Wiley is
radically changing its terms of use and pricing for 2002- ,the Wiley
deal is on hold. NERL is trying to get better terms.]

3. Systems Update

Ann Montanaro reported that authorities work starts today, netLibrary
records have been tested, Ebsco records have been tested but not
reviewed and should be ready by September, Innopac was turned off July
1, and technical services is being rearranged beginning today.

4. 2001/02 Goals

Bob distributed copies of "2000 Collection Development Goals and
Accomplishments and 2001 Objectives" (September 2000), updated with
notes describing accomplishments over the past year, and the collection
development goals excerpted from A Bridge to the Future.

He began the discussion with a review of the goals from the long-range
plan. Overall, significant progress has been made in almost all areas.
Recommendations from the discussion were:

Bob should summarize expansion of the e-resources budget.

CDC should review the work of the university strategic plan
committees, especially those that grant SROA funds.

There needs to be a discussion of the current distributed approach to
digitization projects in relation to systemwide sensibilities. An
example is the new link to finding aids from within IRIS and the need to
include a service explanation in the finding aids. The discussion should
include the hiring of digital librarians and how to manage production
work that is being done by committees.

Collection development policies should be reviewed. They could be
linked from subject research Web guides, or there could be just one
overall statement, packages and consortial purchases need to be
included. Bob and Howard will poll their e-discussion lists for other
institutions that have recently updated their statements.

More work should be done in the assessment area.

Preservation needs outlined in the Preservation report, Reinvestment
in Knowledge (May, 2001) covers preservation issues related library
digital projects but do not articulate an archiving policy related to
commercially-available products. This area should be explored further.

The group next reviewed the 2001 objectives. There was discussion about
undergraduate needs and weeding. Various objectives were noted as done,
ongoing, or not done. Suggestions were that CDC augment campus efforts
with a systemwide review of CD-ROM titles for networked availability and
become active in promoting development of subject research Web guides as
a collection development activity. New goals suggested were to sponsor
Blackwell's collection manager training and review the stability of
e-journal packages.